Fyffes Line - Page 4 - Ships Nostalgia
03:55

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

Fyffes Line

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #76  
Old 11th September 2006, 13:53
PAULD's Avatar
PAULD PAULD is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
My location
Posts: 488
Fuel pumps falling off engine is an unusual event - can you tell us more?
I sailed on Motagua and that was perhaps the only failure she did not experience.[/QUO


Recollection a bit cloudy now, the ship was about 4months old at the time but the injector pumps were in two banks of five and one of these sheared its retaining studs and fell away, damaged the engine casing slightly damaged the camshaft [ that was supposed to get checked/repaired/replaced at bethlehem steel in america if i remeber correctly ]. Ripped out five fuel lines, thier trace heating lines amd the safety sheathing that was around them. I think we were stopped for about 36 hours. We had to turn up new main studs, I was on it for another couple of months after that and paid of just as it was suppose to be going to get the camshaft checked/changed
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 15th September 2006, 22:56
Jim S Jim S is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,386
Manzanares

Quote:
Originally Posted by PAULD View Post
Fuel pumps falling off engine is an unusual event - can you tell us more?
I sailed on Motagua and that was perhaps the only failure she did not experience.[/QUO


Recollection a bit cloudy now, the ship was about 4months old at the time but the injector pumps were in two banks of five and one of these sheared its retaining studs and fell away, damaged the engine casing slightly damaged the camshaft [ that was supposed to get checked/repaired/replaced at bethlehem steel in america if i remeber correctly ]. Ripped out five fuel lines, thier trace heating lines amd the safety sheathing that was around them. I think we were stopped for about 36 hours. We had to turn up new main studs, I was on it for another couple of months after that and paid of just as it was suppose to be going to get the camshaft checked/changed
Thanks for the further info on the fuel pump problem. - Am I correct that Manzanares was designed for UMS (unmanned machinery space) operation?
I guess the engine room must have been manned at the time of the incident or the result could have been disastrouswith all that hot fuel oil spraying about. The earlier M - class were not UMS classed (Matina,Morant,Motagua).
How long were you with Fyffes? I was with them from 1968 - 1974
Jim S
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 15th September 2006, 23:04
wa002f0328 wa002f0328 is offline  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 844
anyone sail on TURRIALBA in the 60s?
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 15th September 2006, 23:14
terence terence is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
My location
Posts: 31,259
music

what music would remind you of the mn like m

armalade reflections of my life
bobby darin
beyond the sea
jonney hates jazz
turn back the clock
neil sedaka
i miss the hungry years




Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 18th September 2006, 20:38
PAULD's Avatar
PAULD PAULD is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
My location
Posts: 488
I guess the engine room must have been manned at the time of the incident or the result could have been disastrouswith all that hot fuel oil spraying about. The earlier M - class were not UMS classed (Matina,Morant,Motagua).
How long were you with Fyffes? I was with them from 1968 - 1974
Jim S[/QUOTE]

Was with them71 -75. The Mazatec was and there was one hell off a mess everywhere
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 18th September 2006, 21:07
Jim S Jim S is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,386
Mazatec

Quote:
Originally Posted by PAULD View Post
I guess the engine room must have been manned at the time of the incident or the result could have been disastrouswith all that hot fuel oil spraying about. The earlier M - class were not UMS classed (Matina,Morant,Motagua).
How long were you with Fyffes? I was with them from 1968 - 1974
Jim S
Was with them71 -75. The Mazatec was and there was one hell off a mess everywhere[/QUOTE]

Phew, You were certainly fortunate not have had a serious fire.

(for some reason I got mixed up between Manzanares and Mazatec)

Jim S
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 19th September 2006, 12:26
Tony Breach Tony Breach is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 520
An excellent photograph of NICOYA (1) 1905 was published in Marine News Sept 2006. This ship has no poop as per Haws No.31 pp22.

Haws indicates that there were 7 ships in this class as follows (with dimensions):
NICOYA (1) 1905 3911GRT 365.5' 574nhp Stephen, Glasgow
PACUARE (1) 1905 3891GRT 367.3' Workman Clark, Belfast.
ZENT (1) 1905 3890GRT 367.3' Workman Clark
BARRANCA (1) 1906 4115GRT 630nhp Stephen
CHIRRIPO (1) 1906 4041GRT 666nhp Workman Clark
REVENTAZON (1) 1906 4175grt 666nhp Workman Clark
TORTUGUERO (1) 1909 4175 413nhp

Haws then has the ARACATACA (1) class of 1911 illustrated by a ship with a poop, otherwise similar to NICOYA (1), 2 ships as follows:
ARACATACA (1) 1911 4154GRT 376.3' 413nhp Workman Clark
MANZANARES (1) 1911 4094GRT Stephen.

Where there is no information Haws refers to vessel as "sister of". He refers to TORTUGUERO (1) as being "transitional" with ARACATACA (1) class.

Parsons' The White Ships & Davies' Fyffes & The Banana have slighlty different numbers but essentially similar. However Parsons indicates dimensions as follows:
NICOYA(1) to ZENT (1) 367' x 46'
BARRANCA (1) to TORTUGUERA (1) 374' x 47'
ARACATACA (1) & MANZANARES (1) 375' x 48'

In addition to the NICOYA (1) photo I have photos of ZENT (1), BARRANCA (1) & MANZANARES (1) which show that ZENT (1) has a poop, BARRANCA (1) does not have a poop & MANZANARES (1) does have a poop as indicated in Haws drawing on pp23.

It seems that there are really 3 classes here: NICOYA (1), BARRANCA (1) & ARACATACA (1) based upon length, beam & tonnage but with detail differences in engine output & the provision or otherwise of a poop. (Fairly significant details!)

It also seems that it was normal for the Workman Clark ships to have a poop whereas the Stephen ships did not although the MANZANARES (1) did have one.

I would be interested to learn which vessels within the total 9 did have poop decks in order to correct my records of these vessels. (To Fyffes they were all "B" class anyway)

Last edited by Tony Breach; 19th September 2006 at 13:26.. Reason: INCOMPLETE
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 19th September 2006, 12:28
TonyB aka Berni TonyB aka Berni is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3
No mention of the T's. I sailed on Tucurinca and then Turrialba (three trips running) Enjoyed Fyffes but decided it was a bit limited so moved on to Whitco before swallowing the anchor.
Didn't see any mention of Capt Geoff Wallis who I thought was the best Master I sailed with.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 19th September 2006, 12:36
R58484956's Avatar
Super Moderator
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1952 - 1965
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 14,864
Wecome to the site TonyB enjoy it and all it has to offer.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 19th September 2006, 19:59
Jim S Jim S is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,386
Fyffes Line - Capt Geoff Wallis

Tony B,

I attach a photo that MIGHT be Geoff Wallis. I had written the caption on it that it was Capt Evans but looking at the signature in my discharge book it looks more like G Wallis. He is the one nearest camera and was taken on BAYANO in mid 1972. He was the first master on BAYANO from the builders in Vigo, Spain. A good guy if I may say in the kindest way slightly eccentric. The picture is of him and chief steward scrubbing some palm fronds that he thought could be fashioned into an awning. - One night in Puerto Cortes he was thinking of going ashore for a walk but it was pouring with rain and he was concerned his pipe would go out - A deck apprentice suggested he turn his "sou'wester the other way around and that would shield his pipe - he thought it a great idea. - maybe it was just his sense of humour.
Please let me know if it is indeed Geoff Wallis so that I might correct my mistake.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg capt wallis.jpg (75.8 KB, 128 views)
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 19th September 2006, 21:56
Jim S Jim S is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,386
NICOYA of 1905

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Breach View Post
An excellent photograph of NICOYA (1) 1905 was published in Marine News Sept 2006. This ship has no poop as per Haws No.31 pp22.

Haws indicates that there were 7 ships in this class as follows (with dimensions):
NICOYA (1) 1905 3911GRT 365.5' 574nhp Stephen, Glasgow
PACUARE (1) 1905 3891GRT 367.3' Workman Clark, Belfast.
ZENT (1) 1905 3890GRT 367.3' Workman Clark
BARRANCA (1) 1906 4115GRT 630nhp Stephen
CHIRRIPO (1) 1906 4041GRT 666nhp Workman Clark
REVENTAZON (1) 1906 4175grt 666nhp Workman Clark
TORTUGUERO (1) 1909 4175 413nhp

Haws then has the ARACATACA (1) class of 1911 illustrated by a ship with a poop, otherwise similar to NICOYA (1), 2 ships as follows:
ARACATACA (1) 1911 4154GRT 376.3' 413nhp Workman Clark
MANZANARES (1) 1911 4094GRT Stephen.

Where there is no information Haws refers to vessel as "sister of". He refers to TORTUGUERO (1) as being "transitional" with ARACATACA (1) class.

Parsons' The White Ships & Davies' Fyffes & The Banana have slighlty different numbers but essentially similar. However Parsons indicates dimensions as follows:
NICOYA(1) to ZENT (1) 367' x 46'
BARRANCA (1) to TORTUGUERA (1) 374' x 47'
ARACATACA (1) & MANZANARES (1) 375' x 48'

In addition to the NICOYA (1) photo I have photos of ZENT (1), BARRANCA (1) & MANZANARES (1) which show that ZENT (1) has a poop, BARRANCA (1) does not have a poop & MANZANARES (1) does have a poop as indicated in Haws drawing on pp23.

It seems that there are really 3 classes here: NICOYA (1), BARRANCA (1) & ARACATACA (1) based upon length, beam & tonnage but with detail differences in engine output & the provision or otherwise of a poop. (Fairly significant details!)

It also seems that it was normal for the Workman Clark ships to have a poop whereas the Stephen ships did not although the MANZANARES (1) did have one.

I would be interested to learn which vessels within the total 9 did have poop decks in order to correct my records of these vessels. (To Fyffes they were all "B" class anyway)
Tony,
It seems that John Bartlett has opened up a can of worms with his photo in "Marine News" He was right to correct the mistake on the back of the photo that indicated it was the NICOYA of 1905 and not the one of 1929.
Regarding "nhp" - I would not put much emphasis on it - James Watt was to blame for it and at best it can be used only for comparative purposes and may in the distant past have been used for insurance or tax purposes. It has no direct comparison with actual horse power Indicated, Brake, Shaft or otherwise.
As you can imagine Brocklebank was one of the few companies that incorporated nhp on the ship's stamp. For example MAGDAPUR had an nhp of1226 and a shp of 6800. MANGLA 1294 nhp 7250 shp.
I think there were always design detail differences between Workman Clark ships and Stephen built. Will be interesting to see if Rory comes up with an answer to your query - he has built up an excellent knowledge of the ships of Elders & Fyffes and parent United Fruit Company.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 20th September 2006, 10:24
Rory Rory is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 701
Poop Deck & Poop?

Hi All
Glad to find this new segment.

Thanks, Jim, for you confidence in me, but I am not as well versed, as I would like to be.

To show my ignorance let me ask what a "Poop" really is? As I recall if you had a raised deck aft it was called the "Poop Deck", and if there was a structure built upon it, then that was the Poop?

If we consider then that to have a Poop you also have to have the 'raised' Poop Deck that can be a problem with drawings. If one was to look at a side drawing of E&F Pacure-1905(1) we would say it had the Poop Deck and all the trimmings of the classic Poop. However, that is not the case here. I have a 3/4 Port view of this fine ship, and I will try to explain exactly what is aft of the Main Castle. Firstly, the main castle has steel plating and gunnel instead of a railing at main deck level. Then it curves down to main deck level in the area of the Mainmast and Hatch. This section is protected by a railing Port and Starboard, and at the end of the hatch curves upward to become the plating and gunnel again all the way aft, and around the counterstearn. As I say if you look at a drawing [broadside] it will appear to have a Poopdeck aft.


Tony, I think when Duncan just says “Sister of” it means only that the Builder and specs are the same. If the year of build or other changes are needed he then inserts “except”. and then explains the differences... builder and such.

I would be most interested to know more about the ship terminology in case I messed it all up here. The years have taken its toll.

Cheers,

Rory
Attached Images
File Type: jpg A015_PACUARE_1905_POOP.jpg (166.0 KB, 54 views)
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 20th September 2006, 10:41
Rory Rory is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 701
I should have mentioned that the aft structure of Barranca-1906 is basically the same as that of Pacure-1905. However, this ship has a railing aft of the main castle, and extending all the way aft, and around the counterstern. I think it correct to say the main deck is the only deck aft of the main castle for this class of vessel regardless of builder. The difference is only cosmetic in the use of railing and/or combination of railing and steel plating. It is the latter that gives the appearance of a Poop Deck when in fact there is only the Main Deck in this group of vessels.
Rory
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 20th September 2006, 21:51
wa002f0328 wa002f0328 is offline  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 844
The fuel pumps never fell of on the TURRIALBA so what happened on the M boats, May be lack of enginering knowledge
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 20th September 2006, 23:30
Jim S Jim S is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,386
M- Class Ships - Fyffes Line

That is a bit harsh to question the engineering knowledge on Mazatec.
As the original writer stated the ship was only 4 months old and for holding down studs on a bank of fuel pumps to shear is most uncommon.
That said the Kawasaki built M-class of motorships had various mishaps in their early careers and were not my favourite ships. Motagua for instance had to take refuge at Hawaii on her maiden voyage when a crack developed across main deck. The other two ships of the class in service at the time were ordered to nearest suitable port where I-beams were welded to the main deck either side of the fore deck hatch coamings from the accommodation to the fo'csle until the builder solved the problem of hull strength.
Turrialba was a turbine ship and not a motor ship.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 22nd September 2006, 12:53
Tony Breach Tony Breach is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 520
Rory & Jim,

Thanks your comments & information.
Rory, I finally managed to get back into this thread & took another look at my photo of ZENT (1) which is not too sharp. You are correct - on close inspection this is not a poop but a bulwark & therefore can be counted as a detail difference.
Jim, Seems that nhp is a bit of an abstract value although Haws does dwell on the vessels prior to TORTUGUERO (1) being overpowered for their speed requirements while he gives 12 knots as being the speed for all of the 9 ships. I'll never be much of an engineer!

Do you both think that, in view of the dimensions that I have taken from other publications, my proposed division of the NICOYA (1) seven vessels is correct. I understand that sister ships always have identical frames & there seems to be a difference between ZENT (1) & BARRANCA (1) & the ships that followed her. This difference is in all dimensions & GRT although there is a significant lookalike factor.

Tony
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 22nd September 2006, 19:32
Rory Rory is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 701
Early E&F Vessels

Hello Tony;

Thanks for updating me on the correct nautical term “Bulwark”. It has been so many years since I was at sea I have forgotten most of the seagoing terms for nearly everything.

As Jim said, I too think there will be slight differences in ships from different builders, but also vessels from the same builder when they are constructed over a long time span. The basic specs from the same builder for some of the ships in question here are as follows from Alexander Stephen & Sons, Glasgow, by Clydeside Database. These present another version from wherever.

NICOYA-1905 3911grt 365’0”x 46’0”
BARRANCA-1906 4124grt 372’0”x 47’0”
TORTUGUERO-1909 4161grt 374’7”x 47’7”
MANZANARES-1911 4094grt 376’0”x48’0”

I would think there is no harm in putting the vessels into two different classes [or at least adding a sub class] as outwardly the ships with the bulwark aft do look quite different than the others.

The E&F “B-Class” of 19 Reefers were built over the span of nearly a decade 1920-1929. There were slight differences here too, and I’m not sure if I can give accurate specs for any of them, but were basically very near the same design throughout. One can easily tell the Cammell Laird vessels from the other two builders, but that’s about it.

Just my views, Tony.

Cheers,
Rory
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 23rd September 2006, 16:14
PAULD's Avatar
PAULD PAULD is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
My location
Posts: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by wa002f0328 View Post
The fuel pumps never fell of on the TURRIALBA so what happened on the M boats, May be lack of enginering knowledge
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim S View Post
That is a bit harsh to question the engineering knowledge on Mazatec.
As the original writer stated the ship was only 4 months old and for holding down studs on a bank of fuel pumps to shear is most uncommon.
That said the Kawasaki built M-class of motorships had various mishaps in their early careers and were not my favourite ships. Motagua for instance had to take refuge at Hawaii on her maiden voyage when a crack developed across main deck. The other two ships of the class in service at the time were ordered to nearest suitable port where I-beams were welded to the main deck either side of the fore deck hatch coamings from the accommodation to the fo'csle until the builder solved the problem of hull strength.
Turrialba was a turbine ship and not a motor ship.
i agree with both of you the m class were troublesome, but the standard of some of the staff employed left much to be desired
i rembewr going through the panama canal we had a 4th and3rd of steam ships never sailed on motor, they had been on the ship a fortnight so they both took half the trip through with the second eng. I took the other half with the chief eng who sat in the control room chair pissed as a rat, and slept most of the passage, i was eng cadet at the time
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 23rd September 2006, 19:07
wa002f0328 wa002f0328 is offline  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 844
what a great story, Turrialba was one of the best ships I sailed on, She was T class to a "T" built in Germany along with her sisters great ship great run, better than tankers,. she was class.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 23rd September 2006, 22:30
Rory Rory is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 701
Elders & Fyffes Banana / Tomato Boats

Elders & Fyffes Banana / Tomato Boats.

While Duncan Haws does a fine job on these vessels in his “FLEET LISTS” I thought I would pass along more history on them not covered in the Haws Book.

Below is from Mr. Mark H. Goldberg’s fine book “GOING BANANAS

ARGUAL, OROTAVA and TELDE These three sisters were "hot boats" equipped with natural draft ventilation built in 1927 to carry bananas and tomatoes for Elders & Fyffes Canary Island service from Liverpool.

Because of the tremendous growth in the size of the modern banana carrier, these three smart looking ships are regarded as Miniature "B"2 Class ships. Handsome three decked steel steamers with slightly raking bows and modified counter sterns, they would not really fit into Fyffes' fleet for very long. The ARGUAL came from the 'Newcastle yards?' of Cammell Laird while the OROTAVA and TELDE were built by Alexander Stephen and Sons, Ltd. at Linthouse. Measuring about 2,700 gross tons, they were 314 feet long overall, 300 feet long between perpendiculars, 44 feet in beam and 20.5 feet in depth. With a cargo capacity of about 127,000 cubic feet, they were listed at 1,603 net and 2,615 deadweight tons. Equipped with triple expansion engines, these ships generally steamed at 12.5 knots. The Depression cut into their trade forcing them to service other ports even splitting cargoes by leaving a portion in one and the remainder elsewhere. Fitted with an ammonia system of refrigeration in 1933, these three were transferred to the Mayan Steamship Corp. and registered in Honduras in 1934. The ARGUAL, at least, worked for a while between Boston and Honduras that year.

Because of the practice of loading heavy cargoes on deck in the Canary Island trade, these ships had a high metacenter, which rendered them somewhat stiff and made them liable to roll. Like the contemporary AZTEC class built at Cammell Laird, cement was poured into bridge wing cabs in an effort to serve as counterweights to their hulls. But the trio were never really cured of their tendencies and developed a reputation among sailors as ships to avoid on that score.

The TELDE inaugurated the new port at Barranquilla, Colombia on December 31, 1936, being the first ocean ship to tie up there. Scheduled to deliver her cargo as usual to Puerto Colombia, a last minute order from the home office instructed the ship to pick up officials there but to proceed into the new port. The new port eventually caused the demise of shipping operations at Puerto Colombia, some 10 miles away down the railroad track. During July 1937 all three sisters went for refits at the Sparrows Point yard of Bethlehem Shipbuilding where at a cost of $160,000 for all three, additional refrigeration was added and their banana capacity increased from 30,000 to 32,000 stems.

Like most refrigerated banana boats, these did their duty during the early war years, bringing countless loads of foodstuffs to bases around the Caribbean.

Quite appreciated were the cargoes of bananas and coffee these ships brought at the request of the authorities. During the later part of the War all three sisters were transferred to Los Angeles to work on the Pacific carrying general cargo south to Balboa and returning with bananas and coffee loaded at Quepos, Costa Rica. At the end of the War they worked between California and Hawaii. With the return of peacetime trading, the trio returned to the Caribbean. After nearly a decade of dependable postwar service, the ARGUAL was sold on November 12, 1954 for breaking up at the yards of the Pinto Island Metal Company breakers at Mobile, Alabama. The TELDE was sold on October 5, 1959. She was scrapped by the Patapsco Scrap Corp. at Baltimore. New boilers installed in the OROTAVA prolonged her life. She continued carrying bananas until sold for scrap in September 1967.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 23rd September 2006, 23:50
Jim S Jim S is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,386
Rory,
Methinks Cammell Laird is at Birkenhead and not Newcastle - You obviously think so too hence your question mark after "Newcastle Yards".
Very interesting story though.
Jim S
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 3rd January 2007, 01:48
KevinR KevinR is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
My location
Posts: 46
Manzanares

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim S View Post
Thanks for the further info on the fuel pump problem. - Am I correct that Manzanares was designed for UMS (unmanned machinery space) operation?
I guess the engine room must have been manned at the time of the incident or the result could have been disastrouswith all that hot fuel oil spraying about. The earlier M - class were not UMS classed (Matina,Morant,Motagua).
How long were you with Fyffes? I was with them from 1968 - 1974
Jim S
Yes, you are correct in that the Manzanares was designed for UMS operation. I sailed on her as C/Eng. and the ER was unmanned during the night.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 3rd January 2007, 13:53
Tony Breach Tony Breach is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 520
Does anyone have the refrigerated hold capacities in cubic feet for the earlier UFC & E&F ships; mostly pre WW2. I have most of the books pertaining to these fleets but it seems that the capacities of the older ships were generally given in stems.

Another question - how did the ARIGUANI lose the top of her mainmast in WW2?

Tony

Last edited by Tony Breach; 3rd January 2007 at 13:58.. Reason: incomplete
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 22nd January 2007, 23:01
John Rogers's Avatar
John Rogers John Rogers is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1947 - 1954
 
Join Date: May 2004
My location
Posts: 11,254
Maybe she lost it when she was hit by two torpedoes in 1941. I have a picture of the Cavina with the main mast cut down when she was used as Ocean Boarding vessel in 1942 Not seen the Ariguani with her main mast down,dont remember that when I sailed on her in the 1950s
John
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 22nd January 2007, 23:36
Jim S Jim S is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,386
Refrigerated Hold Capacities CAMITO

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Breach View Post
Does anyone have the refrigerated hold capacities in cubic feet for the earlier UFC & E&F ships; mostly pre WW2. I have most of the books pertaining to these fleets but it seems that the capacities of the older ships were generally given in stems.

Another question - how did the ARIGUANI lose the top of her mainmast in WW2?

Tony
Tony,
I have a couple of builder's drawings for CAMITO built by A.Stephen in 1956.
The total hold capacities are given in a number of catagories :-
Insulated Grain 273460 cubic feet
Insulated Bale 208310 cubic feet
Gross Bin 202740 cubic feet
Elevator Deduction 7360 cubic feet
Giving a NET BIN capacity of 195380 cubic feet.

The Insulated Grain appears to be a gross measurement of the hold capacities
The Insulated Bale is less Air Ducts, gratings etc
Gross Bin is as Insulated Bale less deductiions for fruit fittings, posts etc.

As built CAMITO was carrying bananas as "stems" -By the time I joined Fyffes in 1968 the fruit was being carried in boxes.

Jim S
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Silver Line Ltd, London litavan Looking for Old Shipmates 605 3rd December 2019 08:47
The Palm Line Man Alwyn Palm Line 9 29th June 2018 04:07
Palm Line Contacts Alwyn Palm Line 17 8th April 2013 10:05
Picture Use. Glen and Shire Line. Capt.John Bax. Ret. Glen Line 5 22nd February 2007 21:33
GLEN and SHIRE LINE PICTURES. Capt.John Bax. Ret. Glen Line 2 9th October 2006 19:38



Support SN


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.